dSWAP(U,V)= 􏰀k i=1 |ui −vi| (Full Version)

Foro Flamenco: http://www.foroflamenco.com/
- Discussions: http://www.foroflamenco.com/default.asp?catApp=0
- - General: http://www.foroflamenco.com/in_forum.asp?forumid=13
- - - dSWAP(U,V)= 􏰀k i=1 |ui −vi|: http://www.foroflamenco.com/fb.asp?m=133672



Message

sean65 -> dSWAP(U,V)= 􏰀k i=1 |ui −vi| (Apr. 12 2010 1:27:21)

Hey Guys,

If any of you are still struggling with compas, I've found this explanation.

As you'll see, it's as clear as mud!

If only JM had put this in the front of his book it could have saved me months of head scratching.[:D][:D][:D]

http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~godfried/publications/winfield.pdf



XXX -> RE: dSWAP(U,V)= 􏰀k i=1 |ui −vi| (Apr. 12 2010 3:58:45)

My 2 Euros...
i like the idea, nothing unusual coz we talk about it here too, but its incomplete (by picking only one rhythm per style), and the results not right.
People have always tried to form the things they dont understand, or trying to understand in terms that can be understood. Science is nothing else. On the one hand it is hard to do science in art, because it seems easier to just feel it (for those who have practical knowledge), on the other hand, making music being understandable in words would make it easier for those who cant spent years on listening etc.

Drawing paralels, when i take my physics or mathematics book, it contains the kumulated knowledge of some 400 years. But reading & understanding it would maybe only take couple of years. Any guitar method contains a little theory in the beginning. So far i havent seen a method that is about compas, but it would be interesting (given its correct). It would need to give much more rhythmic examples than this paper though.



Ron.M -> RE: dSWAP(U,V)= 􏰀k i=1 |ui −vi| (Apr. 12 2010 5:27:21)

quote:

when i take my physics or mathematics book, it contains the kumulated knowledge of some 400 years. But reading & understanding it would maybe only take couple of years


Understanding, maybe....but truly getting a feel for it lies deeper than just understanding...and that's what all the great researchers had.

Same in guitar..

You can understand what something's about... but truly getting a feel for it is a different thing IMO.

And that's what all the good players have.

cheers,

Ron



Stu -> RE: dSWAP(U,V)= 􏰀k i=1 |ui −vi| (Apr. 12 2010 6:05:03)

i havent read the whole paper but what the hell is the title of the post supposed to mean???

never mind....now i see!

I'll read that paper and many thanks for posting but something dont seem right with it...not "what" they are saying but the "why?" I mean whos reading this kind of thing???? apart from some of us and academics,... not little jimmy gitano thats for sure!

Some of the graphs are quite nice but at the end of it all, it makes me feel like im in school or doing an exam or something...



Arash -> RE: dSWAP(U,V)= 􏰀k i=1 |ui −vi| (Apr. 12 2010 6:15:02)

i have found a better formula for myself which is E=MC²

e= energy
m= music
c= compas

you have to convert your energy in to music with compas.

simple.



bhandras -> RE: dSWAP(U,V)= 􏰀k i=1 |ui −vi| (Apr. 12 2010 6:25:22)

There are people who research artificial music construction and/or recognition. Maybe this paper is helpful with such topics.



XXX -> RE: dSWAP(U,V)= 􏰀k i=1 |ui −vi| (Apr. 12 2010 6:27:48)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron.M

quote:

when i take my physics or mathematics book, it contains the kumulated knowledge of some 400 years. But reading & understanding it would maybe only take couple of years


Understanding, maybe....but truly getting a feel for it lies deeper than just understanding...and that's what all the great researchers had.

Same in guitar..

You can understand what something's about... but truly getting a feel for it is a different thing IMO.

And that's what all the good players have.


[Being a good player is more a mechanical thing IMO. For example you can have feeling, but be in bad shape as a player, or have an injury.]

I took the book as an example of how effective science is when its about knowledge, ie understanding (1). To have a feeling (2) for something does not require any understanding in "terms" (ie words & explanations). Yeah they are different things so i wouldnt want to say one thing is better than the other. They serve different purposes: science for understanding, practice (listening+playing) for feeling. IMO.
Basically i just wanted to say dont write science in art off too fast (with the exception of this paper), coz there is some benefits, although i would agree in that it is absolutely not necessary. (and apart from that its not that developed either)

Arash, thats correct. As we see, compas is more important than music. [;)]



XXX -> RE: dSWAP(U,V)= 􏰀k i=1 |ui −vi| (Apr. 12 2010 6:38:54)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arash

i have found a better formula for myself which is E=MC²

you have to convert your energy in to music with compas.


Better. You get energy by making music that is in compas. [:D]



Arash -> RE: dSWAP(U,V)= 􏰀k i=1 |ui −vi| (Apr. 12 2010 6:41:01)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deniz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arash

i have found a better formula for myself which is E=MC²

you have to convert your energy in to music with compas.


Better. You get energy by making music that is in compas. [:D]


it works in both directions.
thats the beauty of this formula [:D]



Ron.M -> RE: dSWAP(U,V)= 􏰀k i=1 |ui −vi| (Apr. 12 2010 7:05:07)

I suppose what I was meaning Deniz is that Science is not all just booklearning and dull, dork stuff.

I've worked with some really good Engineers and Designers who might have the same academic qualifications as their colleagues, but seem to have a heightened empathy with the subject and can mould it and create with it like it was a piece of modelling clay.
I find these people "artists" as well, but in a different medium.

They are usually a bit eccentric as well. [:D]

I think they have the same kind of mindset and ways of looking at things that good musicians have.

cheers,

Ron



NormanKliman -> RE: dSWAP(U,V)= 􏰀k i=1 |ui −vi| (Apr. 12 2010 9:29:39)

But rhythm is about our perception of the passing of time. How can that be studied analytically? You have to do it (and observe yourself) to understand it. I didn't try to understand that report, so maybe there's something interesting that I missed.



sean65 -> RE: dSWAP(U,V)= 􏰀k i=1 |ui −vi| (Apr. 12 2010 9:47:04)

quote:

i havent read the whole paper but what the hell is the title of the post supposed to mean???


I cut and pasted the equation from the attachment but it contained unrecognisable fonts. Nothing to get upset about Stu.[:D]

quote:

I'll read that paper and many thanks for posting but something dont seem right with it...not "what" they are saying but the "why?" I mean whos reading this kind of thing???? apart from some of us and academics,... not little jimmy gitano thats for sure!


lol, Exactly, I was just searching around for online solea compas to practice with.



Adam -> RE: dSWAP(U,V)= 􏰀k i=1 |ui −vi| (Apr. 14 2010 9:33:21)

Academia fail.



Chiste de Gales -> RE: dSWAP(U,V)= 􏰀k i=1 |ui −vi| (Apr. 14 2010 10:51:22)

This looks like analysis for the sake of analysis.

Ill get you the guys who wrote this paper aren't playing any better because of it.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET